PARVEEZ AHMAD LABROO Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUBJECT Parveez Ahmad Labroo has been arrested in FIR No. 31/2001 U/S 7/27 I. A. Act of P/S Nowhatta Srinagar. While in custody in above substantive offence the District Magistrate Srinagar (respondent No. 2) passed an order of detention bearing No. DMS/ PSA/8 dated: 10 -05 -2001 detaining him U/s 8 of J&K Public Safety Act, 1978 with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State. This detention order as also the consequent detention is under challenge in this petition. Number of grounds are taken thereto. However, counsel for the petitioner confines his arguments and submissions to following grounds: i) First counsel submits that the dclenue has not been supplied the grounds alongwith the material referred in the grounds, in as much as, the detenue is an illiterate person and was not made to understand the detention order and grounds in English language. No translation or transcription of the order and grounds was supplied to him in Urdu/Kashmiri language. Though detenue shown to be involved in number of cases referred in the grounds but he has not been provided even copy of FIR to enable him to make an effective and meaningful representation against the detention to the Govt. Detenue has not been even informed of his right to make representation, and ii) Second counsel submits that there has been delay of 57 days in implementing the order of detention. No explanation or reasons arc given for this inordinate delay taken to execute the detention order from 14 -05 -2001 to 11 -07 -2001, which vitiates the order of detention.

(2.) LEARNED GA while countering the arguments submits that the material was supplied to detenue and he was communicated the grounds and order in the language which he fully understood. Copies of FIR have not been supplied to detenue. He was (sic) prejudiced to make effective representation against the detention. However, the counsel is candid enough to concede that there is no explanation or reasons in record to explain the delayed execution to answer the charge of inordinate delay in execution in the facts and circumstances of this case.

(3.) PARAS 8 and 9 of the petition read as under: - "That the detenue is illiterate and cannot understand English language. The detention grounds have been supplied to the detenue which were not understandable and intelligible to the detenue. The detention grounds written in English language and not translated with Urdu or Kashmir! translation thereof has prejudicially effected the detenus right for making the effective representation against his detention order: 9. That the detenue has neither been served with the order of detention nor the material referred to in the grounds of detention. Non supply of the material referred to in the grounds of detention alongwith the copy of FIR, detention grounds to the detenue has prevented him from making an effective representation against his detention. Consequently the detention of the detenue has been rendered void and illegal." In counter paras 8 & 9 are replied as under: "8. That it is denied that the detenue was neither served the order of detention nor the material referred to in the grounds of detention. The material which formed the basis for passing the detention order was supplied to the detenue. FIR and other details referred in the grounds of detention has passing reference and are subsidiary nature. 9. That the grounds are clear and definite and rest of the grounds is denied."